↓ Skip to main content

Decomposing a Chunk into Its Elements and Reorganizing Them As a New Chunk: The Two Different Sub-processes Underlying Insightful Chunk Decomposition

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Psychology, November 2017
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
11 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
30 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Decomposing a Chunk into Its Elements and Reorganizing Them As a New Chunk: The Two Different Sub-processes Underlying Insightful Chunk Decomposition
Published in
Frontiers in Psychology, November 2017
DOI 10.3389/fpsyg.2017.02001
Pubmed ID
Authors

Xiaofei Wu, Mei He, Yinglu Zhou, Jing Xiao, Jing Luo

Abstract

Familiar chunks can be processed highly efficiently, and this automatic process can prohibit the problem solver from developing novel and original ways to creatively solve difficult problems. For this reason, the role of the reverse process, chunk decomposition (CD), the process by which familiar patterns are broken down into their component elements in order to be regrouped in another meaningful manner, has been generally recognized as part of the creative process. However, previous studies on this issue have mainly focused on the decomposition process of CD (the D-process), while the reorganization process of CD has been greatly neglected or has not been distinctively identified in previous work. In this paper, we argue that the R-process could be equally as important as the D-process for CD. Even if a problem solver manages to decompose a familiar chunk into its elements, he or she still may not solve the problem if these elements are not successfully organized in a new and meaningful manner. To investigate whether the cognitive mechanism of the R-process is different from that of the D-process, we designed an experiment for detecting the effects of chunk tightness, which is regarded as the key factor in CD and which can be experimentally manipulated by the radical-level (loose) and stroke-level (tight) Chinese character CD tasks in the D-process, the R-process, and the more purified organization task (the O-process task) that does not involve the decomposition process. Our results showed that the stroke-level (tight) task was more difficult than the radical-level (loose) task for the D-process. However, for the R-process, the stroke- and radical-level tasks showed no differences in performance. Moreover, for the more purified reorganization task, the O-process task, the radical-level organization and reorganization could be even more difficult than the stroke-level organization and reorganization. This result demonstrated that the cognitive processes underlying chunk decomposition and reorganization are fundamentally different. Therefore, more general concepts such as chunk restructuring that could include both D- and R-processes might be more suitable in accounting for this type of creative insight.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 30 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 30 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 6 20%
Student > Master 5 17%
Student > Ph. D. Student 3 10%
Lecturer > Senior Lecturer 3 10%
Student > Doctoral Student 2 7%
Other 7 23%
Unknown 4 13%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 13 43%
Social Sciences 4 13%
Computer Science 3 10%
Neuroscience 3 10%
Physics and Astronomy 1 3%
Other 1 3%
Unknown 5 17%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 14 November 2017.
All research outputs
#18,575,277
of 23,007,053 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Psychology
#22,475
of 30,246 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#249,040
of 325,269 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Psychology
#463
of 557 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,007,053 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 30,246 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.5. This one is in the 19th percentile – i.e., 19% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 325,269 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 12th percentile – i.e., 12% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 557 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 6th percentile – i.e., 6% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.